Hi everybody,
I'm a usual non-anonymous poster from NJ who just signed onto a lease
for an apartment. I had to take what I could get and this was it.
Unfortunately, there are some problems I will explain in a minute. I'm
posting anonymously for my protection, just in case this somehow in a
strange way gets into the hands of the Apartment Complex Manager. Slim
chance, I know, but a chance nonetheless.
I needed to find a 2 bedroom apartment. Unfortunately, most complexes
in the area I was looking at either didn't allow pets or were full. Most
complexes are only 20% 2 bedroom apartments and 80% 1 bedroom, so it is
hard to find a vacant 2 bedroom. Anyway, I found one right near where I
work and they said they allowed pets from 14" to 40 lbs (or something
like that). Well, the agent told us that a ferret shouldn't be a
problem, but then we find out that the manager has disallowed "caged
pets" in the apartments and that if he allowed the ferret he'd have to
allow other caged pets. We offered to pay the pet fee and boost in rent,
but he refused. He was worried about discriminating by allowing my
"caged pet" but not other peoples, but he ended up discriminating against
me based on the type of pet I had even though it fit his 14" to 40lbs.
rule. We even argued (through the agent of course) that we could
technically let her run around free because she was so much like a cat,
but he still resisted. We gave in and are going to harbor the little
girl in violation of our lease. We know the consequences, but think they
aren't severe enough to warrant our getting rid of our little fuzzy.
The thing that bugs me the most is that the Management group owns three
or four complexes in the area. All but this one would have allowed the
ferret, this one didn't. The group gives the site managers the power to
make up the pet policy. That's why the policy differs. I think that is
poor management, but hey, that's me. Anyway, the heart of my annoyance
is the fact that he'd let dogs or cats (which could easily ruin the
apartment) in, but not caged pets that have little or no chance of ever
damaging the unit. That is a ludicrous stand point and makes absolutely
no sense other than the fact that that's how he wants it because he can
make the decisions. Sounds like a man who is on a power trip.
The reason we decided to ignore his rules and move in with pet anyway is
that the other places couldn't guarantee availability by the date we
needed. One had no vacancies, another had a waiting list and a bunch did
the same thing this guy did. . .descriminate. I asked a couple places if
they allowed pets. They said yes and then asked "What kind of pet?"
When I responded "ferret", they immediately said "NO ferrets." What's
with this prejudiced? I'll bet they'd allow a runt rottweiler or
particularly nasty cats (which I know exist), but not a sweet little
playful ferret? Rediculous!!!
This obviously sounds familiar because Daphne Grosz is experiencing the
same dilemma in Austin, Texas. I'm in NJ and these apartment
owners/managers are pulling the same kind of crap. Discriminating
against apllicants based on the type of pet they own. I'd have to agree
with her that there must be some type of legal issue to this whole
argument. It should either be Pets or No Pets, not some half-breed,
half-a**ed, amalgamation of the two decided upon by some guy who probably
wouldn't know what it's like to love these little critters even if he had
one himself. (I was trying to think of a "came up and bit him" type of
phrase, but couldn't. I think this would be one case where a ferret bite
is warranted and should be granted amnesty.) Discrimination lists keep
building as the world changes, so why not add that it's illegal to
discriminate based on someones pet preferences. Hey, sexual preferences
are protected, why not pet preferences? Down with these fascist
management types!!!! Power to the Ferrets!
Jim and Nibbles (Resistance fighter and member of the Flying {not airline
flying} Ferrets of America.)
[Posted in FML issue 1151]
|
